Kurt Busiek talks DC Continuity.

Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
11,994
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/continuity-bbr142
Superman Comics Continuity “Post-Infinite Crisis”



Over the last few days Neal Bailey has been lucky enough to have carried on an email exchange with ACTION COMICS writer Kurt Busiek. Basically, Neal has shared with Kurt some of the frustrations fans have coming to terms with continuity in the current comic books.
It appears as though DC Comics has a different understanding of what the current state of continuity is than that of their readers (or those I and Neal have spoken to and heard from anyway).
i-mos1.gif
In 1986 DC Comics hired John Byrne to revamp/reboot Superman comics. We call this the Byrne era or Post-Crisis comics (the crisis referenced being the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" saga which reset the entire DC Universe at the time). This Post-Crisis era basically started out with a fresh new slate. Superman's story was started from scratch. This was a new continuity with no prior history. We understood that everything that came before was no longer part of this new era.
While many Silver Age fans were disappointed by this reboot, there was now a clear point of origin from which new and old fans alike could latch on to and work from. For nearly 20 years this continuity worked well.
Starting in late 2005 DC Comics published "Infinite Crisis", a saga which changed the DC Universe once again. Due to the machinations of Alexander Luthor (from Earth-3) and Superboy (of Earth-Prime), various versions of different Earths were ultimately combined in to a "New Earth".
"Infinite Crisis" caused a "cosmic reset" (as Kurt Busiek calls it). We're now in the "Post-Infinite Crisis" era (or Post-IC) as many fans are calling it. Here's where it gets tricky though...
Where Byrne's "Post-Crisis" era started from scratch, wiping the slate clean and starting all over again, "Post-IC" has not started from scratch, it appears as though some of the "Post-Crisis" era history remains... but not in a clear linear fashion.
It works like this (if I understand it correctly), the cosmic reset from "Infinite Crisis" created a new set of historical events which are similar to what happened in Post-Crisis continuity but not the same.
For example, if, as it's been officially stated, all previous versions of Zod (prior to the current "Last Son" story in ACTION http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/continuity-bbr142#Comics never happened, how then does one explain the "Our Worlds at War" saga which featured the Russian Zod? Well according to Kurt Busiek, "This is a question that comes up a lot. People assume that if you eliminate one story or story element, then any subsequent story that continues from or depends on that element must simply vanish, erased from continuity. Or maybe it's like a house of cards, where you pull out one card and the rest of it all collapses. But that's almost never true, in a traditional retcon -- for instance, after CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, it was said that Wonder Woman http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/continuity-bbr142#had not been a founding JLA member. This didn't mean that since she wasn't there to take part in the origin, the JLA therefore ceased to exist. It meant that the JLA still existed, but they had a revised origin story. DC didn't get around to telling that revised origin for a couple of years, but when they did, we saw that the origin was largely similar, but Black Canary was involved. Instead of the 'house of cards' of the post-Crisis DCU collapsing, it turned out that the card that had been removed had been replaced with another card, and the house still stood, the JLA still existed.
act780.jpg
"So in a traditional retcon, with 'Our Worlds At War,' as Russian Zod didn't exist, maybe someone else played that role, as Black Canary did with Wonder Woman's role in the JLA origin. Or maybe there was a new character named Yod. Or Zad. Or the Iron Commissar. Or some name that doesn't suck as hard as those. You get the picture.
"Anyway, that's what would happen in a traditional retcon. INFINITE CRISIS, like CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, was rather bigger in scope."
And for those fans who have been trying to fit current continuity in with stories that happened prior to "Infinite Crisis" Kurt has this to say...
"Like the post-Crisis era, the new era that follows INFINITE CRISIS is a new era. As such, it isn't trying to fit snugly into the facts of the previous era. To use the 'house of cards' metaphor again, it isn't a matter of taking out a bunch of cards and slipping in another bunch, but preserving the same basic structure. In the wake of a continuity-revamping crisis, what you have is a new house. A brand new structure, not the old one with cards missing. It may have features that look like the old house, and features that don't, but that doesn't mean it's the old house with a facelift. It's a new house. It's full of some things familiar, some things unfamiliar, some things changed, some things new. And now we get to explore it and see what's there. You don't need to know everything that's in there going in. You didn't the first time you picked up a comic, after all. You can explore and learn and discover. It does mean that, yes, all that stuff you knew about the old era is now outdated information -- still true of the old era, and a valuable part of it in the "Man of Steel" trade paperbacks and all those back issues on my reference shelf -- but not something that necessarily fits into the new one."
infinite-crisis1a.jpg
So, while the DC Universe Post-IC might look like a continuation of the Post-Crisis era, it's not. It's a totally new continuity where things look similar but are different. That's fair enough, I think DC just needs to make this clearer to its readers.
However, it appears as though DC Comics is somewhat perplexed as to why readers can't just go along for the ride like we did with Byrne's reboot. I think I know why... it's because Byrne's reboot was a clean slate. New beginning, no prior continuity existed. This Post-IC cosmic reset does not have the appearance of a clean slate. It draws from the previous era's continuity without clearly stating what parts it's keeping and what parts it has changed.
Kurt quibbles with this view, at least a little. "Post-Crisis -- or, technically, shortly thereafter -- the Superman books did have a hard reboot, like the Wonder Woman book did. But the DCU as a whole had a 'soft reboot,' with lots and lots of material carrying over from the Bronze Age and Silver Age and Golden Age, be it Flash history or Green Lantern history or Justice League history. And some of that history involved Superman. So there were Superman elements from the past that were a part of the, well, Steel Age, for lack of a better term.
"But I'll agree that John [Byrne] and Marv [Wolfman], like George over in WONDER WOMAN, swept away most of what had gone before, and reintroduced or reestablished the elements they wanted to keep over time, and in that respect, the new DCU era, including the Superman books, is more like what happened to books like FLASH or JLA post-Crisis. There were elements that continued over, and elements that didn't. But it didn't follow that, say, since 'Flash of Two Worlds' had no longer happened, that any story that referenced it or involved an Earth-Two crossover must have been wiped from the new continuity. It just meant things had happened, but differently. And it wasn't until 1990 that we found out how 'Flash of Two Worlds' happened in the new continuity, but in the meantime, there was still a Jay Garrick, a Barry Allen and a Wally West -- we just didn't know all the details of their history yet, and we learned them over time.
"That's what we're doing now. Readers didn't know everything about the new DCU a year after CRISIS, either in a hard-reboot book like SUPERMAN or a softer-reboot book like JUSTICE LEAGUE. That new era got explored and built up over time, and this one will, too. You'll see more ways in which the Super-history was different in upcoming issues -- SUPERMAN #665 and ACTION #850 and #852, to name a few -- and get a better idea of what the structure is, and what there is to explore."
The reason we could wait for the Byrne-era to spell things out through the comic stories was because there was no prior history for us to try and connect it with. Byrne did NOT state that anything pre-Crisis was in continuity. This "New Earth" era DOES draw from the previous era, with certain events assumed to have still happened (if somewhat differently).
Kurt responds, "John may not have stated that, but he did draw from the previous era, bringing in some elements whole, like the existence of the Daily Planet, Perry White, Lois, Jimmy and so on, and importing others with few revisions, like Lori Lemaris and Bizarro. Many DCU events established in earlier eras did indeed still happen, from the invasions of Starro and Despero to the wedding of Barry and Iris -- though more for non-Superman books than for Superman books, certainly.
"Ultimately, what I seem to be asked for a lot is an explanation of how this new stuff can be stitched into the old continuity. It won't be, is the main answer. As we roll along and explore the new world, you'll see more of the new world, and see how it fits together, not how it stitches into the previous world."
I think that's where the confusion lies. DC Comics has not stated clearly enough that this is a totally new continuity, with a totally different history (if somewhat familiar). I guess what's frustrating long-time readers is that we know they're not going to go back and explain how those older events are different in this new continuity. The message is: Accept it and move on.
Kurt chimes in one last time: "Many of the older events may well be revisited in the new era, just as the Steel Age showed newer versions of how Superman met Mongul, how the Legion connected to Superman, what the Cadmus Project was, and so on. But those didn't all get explained in the first year, either, so we've got time, I think. And some, doubtless, won't get revisited -- just as, I'm sure, there are Earth-1/Earth-2 crossover adventures that have never been reinterpreted to fit post-Crisis FLASH continuity. But there'll be a history and a structure to it all, and it'll get explored.
"As for the message being 'Accept it and move on,' I'll note that that's Steve's phrasing, not mine. And more, I'll note that we're specifically talking about the idea of continuity conflicts. I understand -- and I'm sure everyone up at DC understood when they chose to do this -- that some readers aren't going to like the idea that this is a new era, a new reality rather than a revised, reworked version of the previous one. But for good or ill, that's what it is -- and as such, while readers and critics can argue for years (and probably will, if the previous Crisis was anything to judge by) over whether it was a good idea, it at least answers the continuity questions clearly:
"'Why doesn't this new element fit with the previous continuity?' 'Because there was a crisis and it's a new continuity now. Things are different.'
"The debates about whether the new adventures are good or not will go on as long as there are new adventures. But hopefully the question of how the new era fits into the previous continuity, at least, is settled. It doesn't. It isn't trying to. It's trying to fit together into a new structure, one that'll hopefully win over readers old and new, as we build it, explore it and showcase that never-ending battle that continues regardless of era."
Hopefully this newsletter, Kurt's comments, and articles and interviews across the internet will help readers understand where DC Comics are coming from and where they're headed. However I think DC should seriously consider some in-comic explanation, because while this newsletter reaches a large portion of Superman fans, there's a much larger fan-base out there who read Superman comics (and DCU comics as a whole) who won't come across articles like this one, who will be wondering about the same things Kurt has just helped us all to understand.
Thanks to Kurt for his input on this matter. Look for more Superman Homepage exclusives from Kurt Busiek over the coming weeks.
Regards,
Steve Younis












My response to this is if that is the case why not start all over again. Atleast it would be better then this big continuity mess.
 
yeah start it all over again and erase conner from continuity. I'd love it!
 
I still don't even understand the logic behind having a second Crisis to begin with? The original COIE was written because DC needed a clean slate because their stories were contradicting each other and their story telling methods were evolving into more complex and continuity/story-driven devices. They needed that new beginning.

Infinite Crisis just seemed to have changed things for the sake of change. Johns wanted to bring in Silver Age elements and he was either too lazy to find a way to do it without contradicting what had come before, or he never considered taking a run at "All Star Superman" where he can go nuts with the SA stuff without having to worry about continuity.
 
I agree but my problem is how can you do something like that. I mean its like saying did Superman die when he first fought Doomsday or what is Batman's origins now. What they did was took everything from the past Pre and Post Crisis and Elseworld (because DC is looking to be headed into Kingdom Come) and mixed them in together and expect us to figure out things on our own. Thats bull***** IMO.
 
I just started reading DC Comics a few years ago and it took along time (and many wiki searches) before I got a general idea of the timeline and continuity post-COIE.

So, of course, at first I was really annoyed when IC jumbled everything around again, but then I decided on a rule:

Everything is just like it was before, unless a post-IC book says otherwise.

This way I don't have to worry about continuity problems (atleast until the post-IC books start contradicting or ignoring themselves :) )
 
I'm pretty sure we're all just feeling the same things pre-Crisis fans felt after CoIE. I don't think it was necessary, but I'm sure the pre-Crisis fans who had grown up with different iterations of the same characters coexisting didn't understand the need of CoIE, either. I do agree with that Steve dude about there being a need for some kind of comprehensive history of the DC universe's major characters after IC, like they did after CoIE with The History of the DC Universe. They kinda sorta did it again with the History of the DC Universe back-ups in earlier issues of 52, but that felt more like a History of Infinite Crisis and its Prologue to me. The scope wasn't broad enough.

Busiek's assertion that the post-IC universe is, in fact, just as much a reset of post-Crisis continuity as the post-Crisis universe was to the pre-Crisis continuity worries me because it sets a pretty bad precedent. CoIE did it once, and it was pretty well justified because the fact that there were two or three versions of characters running around simultaneously was legitimately confusing. Consolidating those characters into one version was necessary. Now, however, we have IC resetting everything simply because the current regime liked the Silver Age. Does this mean we're going to get hard or soft resets to DC's entire continuity every 20 years to suit whatever whims the writers of that generation have? If so, that doesn't bode well for the future of DC's comics. Periodic retreads of everything with minor variations, the way they've done with the 5 or 6 iterations of Superman's origin, hold no interest for me. :o
 
jesus what the hell. DC should just stop f'ing with their history.
 
I think people's problems with the Kingdom Come might being the future is not so much the KC future, but knowing how the characters end up... is that true?
 
I've been reading this stuff for so long I remember the COIE when it came out. I'm enjoying DC a lot more than Marvel right now with a few exceptions. So I'll go along with the accept it and move on philosophy.:cwink:
 
That whole explanation almost makes me want to utterly hate IC. :down
 
I think people's problems with the Kingdom Come might being the future is not so much the KC future, but knowing how the characters end up... is that true?

For me, making Kingdom Come a definite future for the DCU is an awful idea--the entire drive of KC was to shake the universe to its very core, to give a "Revelations" to the "Bible" that is DC's main books. Confining the monthlies by tieing too closely with KC would be a disaster.

On the other hand, adding some elements of KC can't do much harm (especially that cool Red Robin outfit.) It just can't be the only possible future.
 
whatever happens it will probably change later on anyway. I'm with CZAR C. They have the right idea
 
As someone who is old enough to remember the first Crisis and enjoyed many of the great hero reboots, I was disappointed with Infinite Crisis. I don't understand what the point is of changing certain areas of hero history. Either reboot the entire franchise or just write as you will, because most people don't remember how a story last month conflicts with a story from 20 years ago unless it was a classic.

Oh well, at least IC didn't do what I iniitally feared. When Alexander Luthor and company started talking about all the bad things in the DC universe (e.g. Hal Jordan Parallax, Death of Superman, JLA mind wipes, etc.), I was afraid for a second that the DC writers had decided to cop out of the 'darker' direction DC had taken and change everything with one cosmic crisis big bang. :oldrazz:

I think DC needs more continuity with specific characters. DC loves to keep the costume, but not the identity. The Flash, Green Lantern, all the junior versions of Superman, Wonder Woman and other big names. I feel that hurts them. Marvel is much better at this. There's only one Wolverine, there's only one Cyclops, there's only one Incredible Hulk, and so on.... (I guess there are two Captain Americas now, though. :wow: ) I did a big :whatever: when IC went through another Flash swapping situation.
 
I still don't even understand the logic behind having a second Crisis to begin with? The original COIE was written because DC needed a clean slate because their stories were contradicting each other and their story telling methods were evolving into more complex and continuity/story-driven devices. They needed that new beginning.
And they need it here too. Need a good reason? Characters like Hawkman and Supergirl have the most ****ed-up continuity this side of the Mississippi, and IC will hopefully use the opportunity to clean that up.
 
Everything is just like it was before, unless a post-IC book says otherwise.
Exactly. I just assumed that this was the rule. Apparently not every reader is as savvy. Or maybe they just need something to ***** about.
 
For me, making Kingdom Come a definite future for the DCU is an awful idea--the entire drive of KC was to shake the universe to its very core, to give a "Revelations" to the "Bible" that is DC's main books. Confining the monthlies by tieing too closely with KC would be a disaster.
There needs to be an end. At some point, the DCU needs to move on. A part of me is hoping that this new real-time weekly-series trend continues indefinitely, so these people age the way they're supposed to.

By the way, Revelation is supposed to be the definite future of the Bible. So that's not a good metaphor for the point you're trying to make.
 
And they need it here too. Need a good reason? Characters like Hawkman and Supergirl have the most ****ed-up continuity this side of the Mississippi, and IC will hopefully use the opportunity to clean that up.
And why exactly was IC required for a writer to plant their feet, say "for better or for worse, this is IT," and firmly establish a background for these characters? Are you trying to say that these writers (supposedly some of the best talent in the industry, according to their press) couldn't come up with a better solution to these problems than just semi-rebooting everything (one of the laziest cop-out "solutions" a writer can possibly use)? They were somehow incabable of working with the characters' history that was already written years before? :confused:

And using IC as an opportunity to clean up certain characters' foggy origins is still no reason for the countless other changes that weren't required at all (the on/off overhaul of Superman's cast of characters being the most obvious example that comes to mind).

If what DC truly wanted was to clean up the DCU and alter characters willy-nilly, they should've just done a total reboot and started from scratch. Sure, some people would be mad, but it would certainly avoid this entire confusion and it would get the writers what they want.
 
I've dabbled in DC and still find that you don't have to purchase books with the words "Crisis" or "Infinite" on them to enjoy the stories.

I avoid all their crossover crap for the sole reason that it's so goddamn confusing.My little mind cannot comprehend the idea of the multiverse,earth 1 to 17,monitors and continuity punches(I thought this was a joke at first not realizing the writers actually used this for real).
 
I'm a big continuity ****, possibly the biggest here...but I don't think something like this really matters that much.

People like continuity, and it's obvious why people like continuity...after all, if stories could just be rendered "null" at any point in time, then what's the point of reading stories at all?

But we're never going to get one-hundred percent, stone-solid continuity. Never. Not even something close to it. That's just the way it is. All writers can do is to try and adhere to the workings of this incredibly, incredibly complicated multiverse to the best of their ability. The DCU is very old and very vast, and not everything remains solid after years and years. All you can ask for is for them to do their best.

And I don't think it's the Crises and the Zero Hours that cause this; far from it. Continuity shifts are going to happen whether these reboots happen or not. People just like to look at the Crises and say "HERE'S THE PROBLEM," when they're really not. Look at Marvel; they've never had a big universe reboot, and continuity is still incredibly vague, and still gets changed all the time. Show of hands: who here knows which war Tony Stark fought in? Who here knows if Polaris is actually Magneto's daughter? Who were Captain America's parents, and did he or did he not ever have an older brother? Was Nightcrawler ever a priest or wasn't he? Did MJ ever have a baby or not? Is Dr. Strange married or not? Just when the hell exactly did Black Panther court Storm?

Those are all pretty damn important questions regarding the history of these characters -- at least as important as whatever Smallvillesque Kent farm tomfoolery is to Superman -- and they have all been swapped back and forth even without any universe reboots. The "problem" -- if it can even be called that -- isn't universe reboots. You don't need universe reboots to have messy continuity.

How many times have you heard writers from both companies say stuff like "We like to use continuity as guideline and not as law" or "I'm not really gonna adhere to [insert random storyline], that's just gonna hinder my story" or even "That stuff didn't work, it's time for a change"? I don't read every creator interview and I'd still say I hear it a lot. I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying; it's not some great big secret mystery why continuity changes all the time. And for the love of Buffy it's not like these creators are sitting there going "TEEHEE IT'S SO FUN TO FCK WITH THIS HISTORY."
 
As an aside, and I've said this before and I'll say it again: Anyone who read Infinite Crisis thinking that the purpose of it all was to "reboot continuity" or "fix history" or "handle the multiverse" or whatever...I'm not surprised in the least that you didn't like it. I mean, seriously...way to entirely miss the point.

6a00d10a7b001d8bfa00cdf7f2141f094f-200pi


Puppy is ANGRY.
 
Well said, BW. I personally am digging the Post-IC universe more and more these days, regardless of whether or not plot-point x no longer coincedes with plot-point y.
 
One of the major problems I have is that, most of the time, we no longer know if there even is a plot-point Y for plot-point X to coincede with.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,559
Messages
21,759,772
Members
45,596
Latest member
anarchomando1
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"